Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1123 (KAR)

Gladius D. Kulothungan v. State of Karnataka

2015-09-23

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk when purchased by the petitioner for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 16-9-1988 Annexure-A, petitioner's name was entered in the revenue records vide MR No. 29/87-88 where after wards permission was obtained for diversion of the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes whence mutation register Entry No. H23/2011-12 was recorded. In the light of ethnic conflict between the Srilankans and the Tamilians in Srilanka, a Society by name Bright Society registered at Chennai under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act desired to open an orphanage-cum-school for the welfare of Tamil children, since, orphaned in the conflict in Srilanka and some of whose parents had fled to India to escape from the conflict. Petitioner-a Tamilian, offered land in question and the Bright Society started a school for the children in the name and style of 'Smt. Indira Gandhi International Academy' during the year 1990. It is said that Akshaya Patra foundation provided midday meals for 190 children, consisting of both boys and girls with 21 staff members and ward. It is further stated that petitioner-school received rehabilitation package from the Government of Tamil Nadu during the year 1997-98 and obtained permission from the Department of Public Instructions in the State of Karnataka to permit students for Classes 7th to 10th. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, it is said, recommended the case of the petitioner in his letter dated 8-11-1995 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Yelahanka to restore power supply, whence Society was compelled to file W.P. No. 38015 of 1998 and this Court issued certain directions in its order dated 6-1-1999 Annexure-H. Ever since the year 1998-99, it is asserted, that petitioner's name is found in the revenue records in respect of the said property. Petitioner further states that from out of the entire extent of 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur, petitioner purchased the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas from out of which an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas, was proposed to be acquired by the Government by issue of final notification dated 18-6-2014 Annexure-M under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'BDA Act'). No. 10/2 of Jakkur, petitioner purchased the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas from out of which an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas, was proposed to be acquired by the Government by issue of final notification dated 18-6-2014 Annexure-M under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'BDA Act'). In the notification against the column kathedar, is shown Government land, although, the land belongs to the petitioner and the Government has no right, title or interest in the said property. It is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition, BDA, in his letter dated 22-5-2014 Annexure-N stated that a school is run on the schedule property since 1990 and therefore, comes within the ambit of ratio held by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, 2010 (5) Kar.L.J. 177 (SC), (2010) 7 SCC 129 , qualifying for exclusion from acquisition. Hence, this petition for the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction thereby quashing and/or setting aside the impugned Notification bearing No. UDD 426 MNJ 2011, dated 18-6-2014 issued by the respondent 1-Tunder Section 19 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 vide Annexure-M insofar as it relates to lands of petitioner in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore Norm Taluk admeasuring 2 acres 26 guntas ('Schedule property' for short) and consequently to direct the respondents to modify the impugned notification so as to delete or omit the schedule lands of the petitioner from the impugned notification. (b) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." 2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of respondents 3 and 4-BDA, inter alia, stating that petitioner on an earlier occasion though preferred W.P. No. 678 of 2013 questioning the notifications both preliminary and final dated 3-2-2003 and 23-2-2004 withdrew the same without any conditions hence, petitioner has no right in law to question the final notification dated 18-6-2014 as the process of acquisition "was completed long back". On the ground of delay and laches it is stated that petition deserves dismissal. At paragraph 3, it is stated that preliminary notification was issued on 3-2-2003 to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner, amongst others, for formation of Arkavathi Layout. On the ground of delay and laches it is stated that petition deserves dismissal. At paragraph 3, it is stated that preliminary notification was issued on 3-2-2003 to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner, amongst others, for formation of Arkavathi Layout. Petitions of several land losers when considered led to a final notification dated 23-2-2004 wherein instead of land measuring 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2A an extent of 2 acres 18 guntas in Jakkur Village was proposed for acquisition. It is asserted that land in Sy. No. 10/2 is "a Government land as notifications". According to the BDA from out of 5 acres 5 guntas an extent of 28 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 was acquired by the railways and 1 acre 39 guntas by Agricultural University Employees' House Building Society and remaining 2 acres 18 guntas for formation of Arkavathi Layout. 3. At paragraph 4, it is stated that the anubhavdar of land in Sy. No. 10/2 was the State Government as indicated in the notification. At paragraph 5 it is stated that several land losers questioned the notifications, both preliminary and final and orders in the said petitions resulted in W.A. Nos. 2624 and 2625 of 2005, dated 25-11-2005 (The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2006 (1) Kar. L.J. 1 (DB), ILR 2006 Kar. 318 (DB), AIR 2006 Kant. 383 (DB)) and connected appeals, whence a Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and upheld the acquisition proceeding which when called in question before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4097 of 2010, was disposed of with certain observations by order dated 5-5-2010. In compliance with the observations of the Apex Court, it is stated that "BDA recommended a remodified scheme of Arkavathi Layout whence the Government of Karnataka approved the same for formation of "Arkavathi Layout" and published a revised final notification dated 18-6-2014 after considering all objections raised by the respective landlords in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further asserted that the lands in question belong to the State Government and included in the final notification and therefore, vests with the BDA, hence "issuing of notice to any private party does not arise". It is further asserted that the lands in question belong to the State Government and included in the final notification and therefore, vests with the BDA, hence "issuing of notice to any private party does not arise". At paragraph 6 it is specifically stated that the factum of purchase of 2 acres 26 guntas of land by the petitioner in Sy. No. 10/2, the execution of the sale deed recording of the entries in MR No. 29/87-88 H23/2011-12 are "false and incorrect and are hereby denied". As regards the school being run for children of Srilankan and Tamilian refugees, it is stated that BDA has no knowledge, so also the number of students in the school, the staff members and wardens, the permission issued by the Department of Public Instructions to start the school from 7th to 10th Standards and the conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture by order dated 4-11-2008. It is reiterated that 2 acres 26 guntas from out of 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 though claimed to be purchased by the petitioner, is Government land and except the State of Karnataka no other person has any right on the said property. At paragraph 8, it is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition, BDA, in the letter dated 22-5-2014 addressed to the petitioner agreed that the school is run on the premises since 1990 and therefore, the scheduled property comes within the ambit of the directions laid down by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case from exclusion from acquisition "is not fully correct". It is further stated that after considering all the facts and circumstances, Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village is included in the remodified scheme by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In addition, it is stated thus: "The adjacent lands are also included in the notification." 4. At paragraph 9, it is stated that petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands since suppressed filing of W.P. No. 678 of 2013 challenging the preliminary and final notifications and withdrawing the same and on that premise cannot claim any relief in this petition. At paragraph 10 it is made specifically clear that petitioner's documents of title cannot be considered since the entire land in Sy. No. 10/2 belongs to the State of Karnataka as per the notification. 5. At paragraph 10 it is made specifically clear that petitioner's documents of title cannot be considered since the entire land in Sy. No. 10/2 belongs to the State of Karnataka as per the notification. 5. On 12-8-2015 the following order was passed: "The schedule of the immovable property purchased by the petitioner as set out in the conversion order dated 4-11-2008, Annexure-J, which is in respect of 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village from out of 5 acres 5 guntas including 10 guntas kharab while the final declaration dated 18-6-2014 Annexure-M at Sl. No. 693, the extent of 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 from out of 5 acres 5 guntas is shown as belonging to the Government and the boundaries different from that as found in the conversion order. Sri G.L. Vishwanath, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that it is not known as to whether the land proposed for acquisition includes petitioner's land or any other land in the very same survey number since boundaries as noticed supra do not tally. Learned Counsel for respondent-BDA too is unable to state as to whether the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is correct or otherwise and seeks time to secure instructions. The Commissioner or any other Authorised Officer of the BDA to file an affidavit as to the exact location and identity of the land proposed for acquisition and also whether it forms a part of the property belonging to the petitioner, by way of an affidavit enclosing a sketch and other material particulars. Re-list on 17-8-2015." In compliance with the said order, affidavit of Dr. R. Prakash, Land Acquisition Officer of BDA was filed on 18-8-2015. In the affidavit, some of the averments in the statement of objections of the BDA are reiterated. At paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit it is stated thus: "4. I submit that as per Board Resolution No. 92/06, dated 31-5-2006 is was decided to leave from acquisition to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas of land in favour of University of Agriculture Sciences Employees' House Building Co-operative Society. Copy of the Board Resolution is produced as Annexure-R6. 5. I submit that on 12-6-2012 one Sri Jeevan Prakash David Stephen requested for a sketch showing the acquired and not acquired lands in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village. Copy of the Board Resolution is produced as Annexure-R6. 5. I submit that on 12-6-2012 one Sri Jeevan Prakash David Stephen requested for a sketch showing the acquired and not acquired lands in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village. Accordingly a sketch was prepared by the Survey Supervisor on 20-6-2012. A copy of the sketch is produced as Annexure-R7. As per Annexure-R7 Property claimed by petitioner comes within the acquired area." 6. The Land Acquisition Officer asserts that on the dismissal of the civil appeal by the Apex Court, the Government of Karnataka is said to have remodified the scheme for Arkavathi Layout and issued a revised final notification, impugned, in which 1 acre 2 guntas of land was notified for acquisition in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur. At paragraphs 7 and 8, the deponent states thus: "7. I submit that in the revised final notification for 1 acre 2 guntas the check bandi of whole Sy. No. 10/2 has been mentioned. Further I submit that there is no sketch showing 1 acre 2 guntas of acquired land. 8. I submit that on the basis of the above documents it appears that 1 acre 2 guntas notified in the revised final notification is part of the property claimed by the petitioner." 7. In the map annexed to the affidavit as Annexure-R7, the Land Acquisition Officer states that immediately adjacent to the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2, an extent of 1 acre 39 guntas belongs to Agricultural University Employees' House Building Co-operative Society and beyond that land measuring 28 guntas belongs to railways, while on the northern boundary is the boundary of the village by name Shivanahalli, not subject-matter of acquisition. The Map, Annexure-R7 also states that on the east of the land measuring 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 is a private road. The sketch appended to the affidavit as Annexure-R5 indicates that "Indira Gandhi International Academy" is over an extent of 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2. In the legend to the said map, it is stated that "Indira Gandhi International Academy" has a building over 30 guntas and the other open space is meant for playground. The sketch appended to the affidavit as Annexure-R5 indicates that "Indira Gandhi International Academy" is over an extent of 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2. In the legend to the said map, it is stated that "Indira Gandhi International Academy" has a building over 30 guntas and the other open space is meant for playground. In the mahazar dated 4-8-2003 Annexure-R4, in the column details of malkis the name of "Indira Gandhi International Academy" is mentioned and in the column the approximate age as 20 years and the building on 30 guntas of land. So also there is a recording of a playground in the said land and railway track on 28 guntas of land. 8. On 19-8-2015 the following order was passed: "The sketch enclosed to the affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer discloses that on the north of the land in question is the boundary of Shivanahalli Village; on the south, the pink coloured portion is the land released to form a private layout and below it coloured in blue is the land belonging to the Railways, while on the east is a road and on the west is the remaining portion coloured in pink. What is sought to be now acquired in the revised final notification is 1 acre 2 guntas from out of 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2, although, the boundaries mentioned therein are for the composite property in Sy. No. 10/2 measuring 5 acres 5 guntas. Therefore, the exact location of 1 acre 2 guntas by boundaries, is not known. Sri G.L. Vishwanath, learned Counsel submits that on the east beyond the road, lands have been deleted from acquisition for Arkavathi Layout and therefore, 1 acre 2 guntas in the revised final notification for acquisition would be landlocked area insufficient as a composite block for the formation of the layout known as 'Arkavathi Layout'. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned Counsel for Bangalore Development Authority, on instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer, submits that the matter would be discussed with the Commissioner and appropriate statement would be filed, if there is any possibility of forming a layout in 1 acre 2 guntas of land and if it is not possible then an affidavit to that effect would be filed. In the circumstances and having regard to the sketch enclosed to the affidavit, a clear indication that 1 acre 2 guntas would be landlocked having no access from any portion of the Arkavathi Layout, no useful purpose will be served by acquiring this portion of land by the BDA. However, had the BDA acquired the land on the eastern side of the petitioner's property beyond the road perhaps that would have been an indication of a possible connection to 1 acre 2 guntas of land for the formation of the layout, although 1 acre 2 guntas cannot be identified as falling immediately adjacent to the road. It is for the Commissioner to consider the same and file necessary affidavit by 26-8-2015. Re-list on 26-8-2015." 9. In compliance with the said order, the Commissioner of BDA filed an affidavit dated 9-9-2015 stating on oath that Assistant Executive Engineer-V, North Division submitted a report regarding Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village stating that on an inspection of the land with the surveyor the land in question is adjoining a road and if the land is handed over to Engineering Section layout can be formed and therefore, 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 as notified in the revised final notification, impugned, is required for the formation of Arkavathi Layout. 10. On 9-9-2015 the following order was passed: "The affidavit dated 9-9-2015 of the Commissioner is taken on record. The averments in the affidavit do not disclose compliance with the order dated 12-8-2015, more so, in the matter of filing an affidavit as to the exact location and identity of the land proposed for acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer to file an affidavit over exact location and identity of the land proposed for acquisition as indicated in the order dated 12-8-2015, since the Commissioner who has sworn to affidavit on 9-9-2015 has not answered the said query and according to the learned Counsel for Bangalore Development Authority, that Commissioner is on leave today. List on 10-9-2015." In compliance with the said order, the Land Acquisition Officer filed an affidavit dated 10-9-2015 indicating that the schedule of the entire extent of land measuring 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village, as shown in the preliminary notification dated 3-2-2003, is: East - by Sy. Nos. 10/4, 11; West - by Sy. List on 10-9-2015." In compliance with the said order, the Land Acquisition Officer filed an affidavit dated 10-9-2015 indicating that the schedule of the entire extent of land measuring 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village, as shown in the preliminary notification dated 3-2-2003, is: East - by Sy. Nos. 10/4, 11; West - by Sy. No. 10/1; North - By Shivanahalli boundary; and South - Sy. Nos. 9 and 10/5. In the final notification dated 23-2-2004, it is stated, what was notified for acquisition is 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 with boundaries of the entire extent of 5 acres 5 guntas as shown in the preliminary notification. So also, it is stated that in the revised final notification dated 18-6-2014 an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas was proposed for acquisition showing boundaries of the entire extent of 5 acres 5 guntas as indicated in the preliminary and final notifications. According to the deponent the Assistant Executive Engineer-V, North Division is said to have submitted a report opining, on inspection with the surveyor that there is a school and adjacent vacant land facing the road which is suitable for formation of sites. At paragraph 7 it is stated thus: "7. I submit that after leaving school portion remaining vacant land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas bounded on: East by : Existing Road West by : School portion claimed by petitioner North by : Shivanally Boundary South by : Land acquired in Sy. No. 10/2 For formation UAS Employees H.B.C.S. is probably the acquired land notified in the revised final notification." (emphasis supplied) 11. The first submission that the writ petition is not maintainable for suppression of relevant material facts is noticed only to be rejected. It is no doubt true that petitioner, on an earlier occasion filed W.P. No. 678 of 2013 and withdrew the same, nevertheless the challenge in that petition was over the preliminary notification of the year 2003 and the final notification of the year 2004. In this petition, what is challenged is the revised final notification of the year 2014 issued by the respondent-BDA on the basis of a revised scheme sanctioned by the State Government for formation of Arkavathi Layout in compliance with various observations and directions issued by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case. In this petition, what is challenged is the revised final notification of the year 2014 issued by the respondent-BDA on the basis of a revised scheme sanctioned by the State Government for formation of Arkavathi Layout in compliance with various observations and directions issued by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case. If that is so, then it cannot be said that non-mentioning of filing the earlier writ petition amounts to suppression of material facts to attract dismissal of the petition. It must be noticed that the whole process of completion of acquisition proceeding was revisited by the BDA in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case in the year 2010 and such an exercise when carried out by the BDA led the Government approving a revised scheme for formation of Arkavathi Layout rendering the earlier scheme nugatory. The State Government having approved a revised scheme, virtually a fresh scheme, whereby thousands of acres of land sought to be acquired during the year 2003, were given up either by denotifications or giving up acquisition of the lands and many other methodologies. In the revised final notification small pockets of land in different villages are sought to be acquired for formation of Arkavathi Layout. In the circumstances petitioner is entitled to question the revised final notification, as a fresh cause of action has arisen. 12. In Bondu Ramaswamy's case, the Apex Court at paragraph 10 extracted the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and for out purpose, suffice it to extract the following: "(D) Insofar as the landowners excluding the site owners, are entitled to the following reliefs.- (i) All the petitioners who are the landowners who are seeking dropping of acquisition proceedings insofar as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that: (a) .............. (b) .............. (c) properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions; (d) ............. (e) ............... (f) their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of this order. (e) ............... (f) their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of this order. It is made clear that the BDA shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and they decided whether their cases are similar to that landowners whose lands, are notified for acquisition, notified and whose objections were upheld and no final notification is issued. In the event if BDA comes to the conclusion that the lands of those persons are similarly placed, then to exclude those lands from acquisition. (ii) .......... (iii) ........... (E) The BDA is directed to exclude the land bearing Survey No. 9/1 measuring 0.27, 10/2 measuring 1.16 and 10/3 measuring 1.02 of land which are the subject-matter of W.P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 2005 filed by University of Agricultural Science Employees House Building Cooperative Society from acquisition." (emphasis supplied) At paragraph 128, the Apex Court observed thus: "128. We find the haphazard and arbitrary exclusions are in several other villages also, though not to the extent as in Kempapura and Sriramapura. We may refer to some of them: (i) Venkateshapura is a comparatively small village. All the lands were proposed for acquisition under the preliminary notification (except a block consisting of Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 8) in all measuring 95 acres 5 guntas. Virtually the entire southern and western portions of the village have been omitted in the final declaration and only 60 acres 13 guntas are included in the final declaration. But the entire southern portion of the village (about 30 acres) has been deleted except four small pockets which have not been deleted: (a) Survey Nos. 30 and 31 measuring 24 guntas and 25 guntas in all 1 acre 9 guntas. (b) Survey Nos. 33 and 34 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas and 1 acre 18 guntas, in all 3 acres 24 guntas. (c) Survey No. 37/2 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. (d) Survey No. 19/1 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas. 30 and 31 measuring 24 guntas and 25 guntas in all 1 acre 9 guntas. (b) Survey Nos. 33 and 34 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas and 1 acre 18 guntas, in all 3 acres 24 guntas. (c) Survey No. 37/2 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. (d) Survey No. 19/1 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas. There is no explanation as to why, when all surrounding lands are deleted these small four pockets are acquired. (ii) In Nagavara and Hennur Villages, the southern portions of the villages were not notified for acquisition. But deletions are haphazard and have left some small pockets of acquired lands. For example, in Nagavara, Survey No. 107 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, portion of Survey No. 7 measuring 21 guntas, Survey No. 70 measuring 25 guntas, Survey No. 152 measuring 6 acres 4 guntas bifurcated by a road form islands of acquired lands. In the entire Southern part of Nagavara which runs into hundreds of acres, only part of Survey No. 152 is proposed to be acquired. In Hennur Survey No. 103 is a small pocket (28 guntas) which is acquired, is surrounded by lands not acquired/deleted. There are several other islands in Hennur which are not capable of being developed due to their small extents. Their survey numbers are not clear in the map produced. (iii) In Challakere also we find haphazard deletions. We may refer to two stand-alone pockets, that is, land to the east of Survey No. 104 and the land to the east of 100. What we have referred to above is illustrative and not exhaustive. Similar pockets of small extents of acquired lands surrounded by lands which are not acquired/deleted, exist in other villages also." 13. The Apex Court found favour with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and accordingly directed the BDA to re-do its acquisition of lands for Arkavathi Layout by following further directions as recorded in paragraph 160 of the judgment, some of which relevant for our purpose reads thus: "160. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications: (i) ....... In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications: (i) ....... (ii) In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for forming self-contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand-alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. Similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner." (emphasis supplied) 14. The notifications, both preliminary, final and the revised final notification, impugned, though refer to Sy. No. 10/2 as Government land, strangely the officers of the respondent-BDA in the mahazar dated 4-8-2003 Annexure-R4 of the affidavit dated 18-8-2015 of the Land Acquisition Officer describe that in 5 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 there is a building with the nomenclature "Indira Gandhi International Academy" which is over 20 years in age and spread over an extent of 30 guntas, as also, a playground, in addition to 28 guntas of railway track. If that is so, then the Land Acquisition Department of the BDA ought to have made earnest efforts to ascertain from the revenue records maintained by the State of Karnataka, in the custody of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Inspector, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore as to what was the status of the land, whether it did belong to the State Government. It is not known and is not forthcoming from the statement of objections of the BDA as to wherefrom BDA secured information that land in Sy. No. 10/2 belonged to the Government of Karnataka. Again it is not surprising, regard being had to the volume of writ petitions filed by land losers alleging that their names are not shown as notified kathedar in the acquisition notifications. The Land Acquisition Officer is said to have secured information that land in Sy. No. 10/2 belongs to the State Government and not to any private party. Again it is not surprising, regard being had to the volume of writ petitions filed by land losers alleging that their names are not shown as notified kathedar in the acquisition notifications. The Land Acquisition Officer is said to have secured information that land in Sy. No. 10/2 belongs to the State Government and not to any private party. If that is so then it does not find a place in the statement of objections, affidavits of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Commissioner of BDA. It is not known as to what enquiry was conducted over lands before considering recommending the scheme known as Arkavathi Layout, more appropriately over the entries in the revenue records. It is a matter of fact petitioner's name is entered in the Revenue Register, particularly mutation register at MR No. 29/87-88 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on the execution of the sale deed registered as Document No. 4934/88-89, dated 16-9-1988 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, office of the Bangalore North Taluk, after receiving a stamp duty at the rate of 1% of the value of the property, towards charges and fees by the State Government for transferring the name of the landowner in Sy. No. 10/2. The fallacy in the pleading of the BDA that the property in question belongs to the Government is writ large by the Revenue Inspector indicating in his mahazar Annexure-R4 that this land has a building 20 years old with the name "Indira Gandhi International Academy" over 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2. The land in question is permitted to be diverted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes and Mutation Register entry in No. H23/2011-12 is recorded in the name of the petitioner. The officers of the BDA did not carry out their duty and if done, there was no necessity for the BDA to assert that the land in question belonged to the State of Karnataka hence no reason to consider the claims of the petitioner on the basis of the valid instrument of conveyance as also entries in the mutation register. BDA is a Statutory Authority and a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence cannot carry on its business of acquiring lands belonging to citizens without circumspection. BDA is a Statutory Authority and a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence cannot carry on its business of acquiring lands belonging to citizens without circumspection. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of a fact that land in Sy. No. 10/2 belong to the Government of Karnataka as asserted by the BDA, the refusal on the part of the BDA to consider petitioner's documents of title to immovable property cannot but be deprecated. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA makes a faint effort to submit that petitioner did neither file an application nor bring to the notice of the authority about his right, title and interest in the property, which is noticed only to be rejected. It is not for the first time that the petitioner made a claim to title to immoral property in question. As can be noticed, the revenue record maintained by the Tahsildar under Section 127 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in MR No. 29/87-88 is in the name of the petitioner and in a survey of all lands preceding the proposal to form a scheme for Arkavathi Layout and there afterwards in the Mahazar dated 4-8-2003 Annexure-R4 indicating an educational institution in the name of "Indira Gandhi International Academy" in Sy. No. 10/2 over an extent of 2 acres 18 guntas from out of 5 acres 5 guntas, the BDA was fully aware of the fact that 1 acre 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 belong to the University of Agricultural Sciences Employees' House Building Co-operative Society hence, it is too far-fetched to contend that land in Sy. No. 10/2 belongs to the Government of Karnataka. So also, it is within the knowledge of the BDA that 28 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 over which railway track is laid belongs to the railways and not to the Government of Karnataka. 16. For all these reasons, it is impermissible for the BDA, at this distance of time, to assert that land in Sy. No. 10/2 belongs to the Government of Karnataka. It appears that this assertion is made only to disentitle the petitioner to his lawful claims to the immovable property in question. Curiously the Government of Karnataka, respondent 1 has laid no claim to the land in Sy. No. 10/2. No. 10/2 belongs to the Government of Karnataka. It appears that this assertion is made only to disentitle the petitioner to his lawful claims to the immovable property in question. Curiously the Government of Karnataka, respondent 1 has laid no claim to the land in Sy. No. 10/2. If the Government of Karnataka did not lay any such claim, it is not known as to why the BDA seeks to invest such a right in the Government of Karnataka. 17. Efforts to ascertain the exact location of 1 acre 2 guntas of land from out of 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2, subject-matter of a revised final notification impugned has led to no conclusion at the hands of the BDA. There is no dispute that the boundaries to the 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 as indicated in the preliminary notification of the year 2003, are the very same in the final notification of the year 2004 as well as in the revised notification, impugned, though in respect of 1 acre 2 guntas out of 5 acres 5 guntas. If that be so, the respondent-BDA is groping in the dark to ascertain as to where exactly 1 acre 2 guntas of land is located for purpose of forming a large layout called as Arkavathi Layout. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to discharge duties as are required for acquisition of land under the BDA Act. The lackadaisical attitude in not ascertaining the exact boundaries of 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 show apathy on the part of the BDA, the cause to move the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the revised final notification. 18. It should be noticed that the State of Karnataka-1st respondent too failed to ascertain as to whether revised scheme of Arkavathi Layout did conform to the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench in writ appeal, as affirmed by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case. Had the Authorities applied their mind to the boundaries of 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2, perhaps, it would not have been a part of the acquisition in the revised final notification. 19. What emanates from the query of this Court, over the exact location of 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy. Had the Authorities applied their mind to the boundaries of 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2, perhaps, it would not have been a part of the acquisition in the revised final notification. 19. What emanates from the query of this Court, over the exact location of 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 is that on the North of the property belonging to the petitioner, measuring 2 acres 28 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2, is the boundary of Shivanahalli Village in which no lands are acquired for Arkavathi Layout; on the South of the said property is remaining portion of land in Sy. No. 10/2 belonging to the University of Agricultural Science Employees' House Building Society measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2; on the west is the property belonging to the University House Building Co-operative Society and above that is 28 guntas of land belonging to the Railways, while on the east is a private road and beyond that property belonging to a Private Housing Society, beyond which no properties are acquired by the BDA. Therefore, land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas from out of 2 acres 26 guntas belonging to the petitioner in Sy. No. 10/2 cannot but be said to be landlocked and does not form a composite block for formation of a large layout called as Arkavathi Layout. The sketches Annexures-R5 and R7 are testimony to the fact that land belonging to the petitioner measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 is landlocked and there are no other surrounding lands acquired by BDA for making a composite block for the layout known as Arkavathi Layout. 20. The Apex Court in its judgment in Bondu Ramaswamy's case at paragraph 10(E) of the said judgment extracted supra directed that land measuring 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2 and land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy. No. 10/3 belonging to the University of Agricultural Science, be excluded from acquisition. It is a fact that land in Sy. Nos. 10/2 and 10/3 are adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner whose northern boundary is Shivanahalli Village hence the land of the petitioner cannot but be said to be landlocked. No. 10/3 belonging to the University of Agricultural Science, be excluded from acquisition. It is a fact that land in Sy. Nos. 10/2 and 10/3 are adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner whose northern boundary is Shivanahalli Village hence the land of the petitioner cannot but be said to be landlocked. If regard is had to the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 145(iv) that all lands except small pockets are deleted without any valid ground, and persons whose lands were acquired can also seek deletion, on the ground that all the surrounding lands have been deleted, when read in conjunction with the conclusion at paragraph 160(ii) it was for the BDA to consider the fact situation that petitioner's land being an isolated pocket in Jakkur Village must be dealt with as has been done over the balance extent of land in Sy. Nos. 10/2 and 10/3 by deletion. Very strangely the statement of objection as well as the affidavits of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Commissioner of BDA demonstrate such a consideration, as directed by the Apex Court. In the circumstances it is needless to state, that the land in question did not qualify for acquisition in the revised final notification of the Scheme for formation of Arkavathi Layout. In the result, this petition succeeds. The revised final notification insofar as it relates to 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 of Jakkur Village belonging to the petitioner stands quashed.